Governor Greg Abbott today delivered the keynote address at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Annual Policy Orientation where he unveiled his Texas Plan to restore the Rule of Law and return the Constitution to its intended purpose. In his plan, Governor Abbott offers nine constitutional amendments to rein in the federal government and restore the balance of power between the States and the United States. The Governor proposes achieving the constitutional amendments through a Convention Of States.

“The increasingly frequent departures from Constitutional principles are destroying the Rule of Law foundation on which this country was built,” said Governor Abbott. “We are succumbing to the caprice of man that our Founders fought to escape. The cure to these problems will not come from Washington D.C. Instead, the states must lead the way. To do that I am adding another item to the agenda next session. I want legislation authorizing Texas to join other states in calling for a Convention of States to fix the cracks in our Constitution.”

Governor Abbott went on to explain that dysfunction in Washington, D.C. stems largely from the federal government’s refusal to follow the Constitution. Congress routinely violates its enumerated powers, while taxing and spending its way from one financial crisis to another. The President exceeds his executive powers to impose heavy-handed regulations. And the Supreme Court imposes its policy views under the guise of judicial interpretation. Governor Abbott urged action by Texas – and other states – to restore the Rule of Law in America.

Governor Abbott offered the following constitutional amendments:

Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
Require Congress to balance its budget.
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

Stupid. They don't follow the Constitution now, they won't follow his amendments either. Abbott doesn't care anyway, he knows his con-con plan won't work. He just wants everyone to think he's a badass, he's not though just another socialist.

Originally Posted by dannno

It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.

Keeping in mind that the people in charge of a Constitutional Convention would be the same people in power right now.

You can still submit proposed Constitutional amendments without a convention (it was last tried with the Balanced Budget Amendment)- as long as enough states approve it.

One thing we can say about Trump: Least Boring President Ever.

Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

“People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular,” Trump wrote, or at least his ghostwriter did. “I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration – and a very effective form of promotion.”

Then the other states should follow up that "Brexit-like"
move. Maybe instead of a Con-Con, states could demand
a tried a true help desk error recovery procedure...

Unplug all existing federal laws, wait 30 seconds and then
re-boot the fed-gov with ONLY the US Constitution and
first ten amendments loaded into the secure UEFI BIOS.

Pay particular attention to the 9th and 10th amendments
before attempting to add any additional fed-gov laws
at all. Maybe the two amendments (18 & 21)concerning
the regulation of alcohol should remain as a warning how
to not do, and then correctly undo a fed-gov law that
should never ever have been inserted in the first place!

Yuuge fed-gov chunks would be illegal, including the
FDA, FCC, FED RESERVE, IRS... etc. Matters would be
left to the states and the people. Money minted in
silver or gold, only. etc. etc.

Redoing their state constitution would avail them nothing, given the precedents that have been set and enforced at the federal level. Secession would be the path to take.

Unplug all existing federal laws, wait 30 seconds and then
re-boot the fed-gov with ONLY the US Constitution and
first ten amendments loaded into the secure UEFI BIOS.

UEFI?

The strategy has its merits. If we are to have "government", which is virtually a must in this era of unparalleled technology-enabled human stupidity, then let it be held on the tightest and shortest of leashes.

As far as I am concerned, the fedgov has but one valid, broadly stated function: to guarantee the rights of its citizens. Drilling down, that translates into the common defense and the courts, the latter only when those of the states fail. Period. Referring back to the era of human stupidity, we need an armed force that is well coordinated and trained. Without that, our friends in China, Russia, and even Mexico would be sorely tempted to act on the cute ideas they hold about us and their own places in the world. This is the sad reality about humans in an age of stupidity running wild and amok.

The days of anarchic life are gone, perhaps for good... barring that "reset event" to which I have referred so many times. But if we are to live under an Empire framework, even if only for the reason of protecting ourselves from our impossibly stoopid and corrupt global neighbors, it is by all means possible to do so under a structure that would mimic the autodiathistic (anarchic) ideal so closely as to render the construct nearly indistinguishable from that of pure self-determination. This is, IMO, the only path back to freedom, short of the advent of reset, which we do not really want because of all that would go down the tube along with that which we want gone. For any doubters on that point, just think how much you do NOT want modern medicine to vanish from the earth.

Were we to actually take up this cause with action, which we will almost certainly not, then let it be done correctly. IMO, that means removal of the Constitution and replacing it with another framework such as the constitution I cobbled up years ago, which defines with far greater precision, clarity, completeness, and force that which I suppose was intended by the Framers in their swag. Their error, assuming their innocence and a complete absence of any hanky panky, was that they wrote a document for intelligent men of good character and charm. It is precisely that fact which leads me to wonder about my assumption of innocence and no hanky panky.

The Constitution is sufficient for such men, for they understand perfectly what everything means in totality and are of such a character that they would not much abuse the implications of those somewhat broadly stated specifications. The world, however, is not peopled by such individuals, most especially in those places where governance comes into play. Those are the locations that attract men of the worst sorts, precisely because of the formal power that is made available to them. Just look at Congress and the police - pure corruption with but a small handful of exceptions. Worse still is that such positions also attract the apparently well-intending man whose fundamental bent is to employ whatever force he can manage to compel his fellows to toe the lines of his vision of paradise on earth; the progressive is a good example with his notions of free stuff for all men and $15 per hour to flip burgers and dig ditches.

Our Constitution is not sufficient for the world in which we live, where the corrupt and ignorant not only outnumber the smart and morally stout man, but also lack almost any moral core of their own, as well as one of even the most basic sense. Such people have been trained to demand everything with no thought to cost, always depending upon someone else to provide for them and caring no who it is so long as they themselves need lift no finger in their own interest. This circumstance translates at its core to a grand redirection of slavery. Those who think slavery is dead even in places like Europe and America are not seeing clearly. Slavery is, in fact, more dangerously omnipresent in the "first" world than in any other places.

Looking to places like Sudan, we see slavery with great clarity - those taken from their homes, chained or otherwise bound, and openly forced to perform whatever tasks at the command of their masters. Moving the gaze to places like China, the slavery becomes more dishonest due to masking, and thereby more dangerous in that it becomes more difficult to recognize and unseat. But even in China the slavery is of such a nature that any but the laziest or least intelligent among us may strip away the mask and see it for what it is.

But in Europe the masking is so cleverly contrived and surgically made part of the people that seeing the slavery that lives there becomes daunting for most men. But when one is presented with the basic actualities, stripped of the noises that divert the eye and bar recognition, it becomes clear that Europe is a huge slave colony, which will be described shortly.

Then we turn to America, whose masking is so nearly perfect that the common man simply has no hope of uncovering the raging, European-style circumstance of slavery that grows in its bosom like a cancer.

So how, exactly, is it so that America is a slave colony in the making? Because a large and growing proportion want free stuff, perforce implying that someone has to provide it. The so-called "middle class" has become the new slaves to the new masters that we would call the "welfare class". It is clearly a master-slave relationship, for if the neo-slaves were to refuse service to the demands of the neo-masters, violence would ensure as surely as the sun rises every morning.

Consider the occasional EBT failure. Have you not seen what people do? They go simple for no other reason than the funds ran out or were not replenished on time. Now imagine the reaction were there to be a nationwide revolt by the neo-slave class against their condition. It would be literal, sea-to-shining-sea civil war with the fedgov and their men with guns siding with the neo-masters against the neo-slaves.

My point in that little jaunt off the topic plantation is to illustrate the nature of the average man these days. He has always been a brute of sorts to varying degrees, but for thousands of years he retained, usually by the Church's whip, a basic moral kernel that could be relied upon with sufficiency such that he could be trusted not to run amok so long as certain basic conditions held. That is no longer the case, I am sad to say. The average man is now as much the brute as ever he may have plunged to in the past. Transmuted is that basic moral center, which once counseled respect for the rights of his fellows, but which now demands provision in gratification of all his desires, no matter how indulgently base, or who gets hurt in the process.

It is for such men that a structural document such as a constitution must be engineered and made manifest in action. It is because of such men that the Constitution is no longer a valid instrument of guidance. I would greatly wish that things were otherwise, but alas they are what they are. And let the word "guidance" stand out in your eye, for in a world of intelligence and moral substance that is all that is needed, for the average man is well equipped to extrapolate the tenets of guidance to any given situation in life. It is only where a man is stoopid and corrupt that force becomes necessary. We as a people in America, and indeed the world at large, have run from guidance and into the hands of force precisely because we have run from our native intelligence in favor of stupidity; from basic moral propriety into the loving arms of rotting corruption.

It is because of this wholesale reversal of circumstance that has negated nearly all the gains made by men in ages past, such as they may have been in terms of our regard for intelligence and proper moral behavior, that were we to secede and to a reboot on a fedgov, that the basic script would have to be replaced with something new and better suited to the state of decay in which the average man finds himself.

I would note another advantage of such a document: it would serve as a reminder to people of that which can arise in the midst of men in but a heartbeat or two. What I mean is this: such a document is ordered for the beast in man. Given time, men might reassess their views, particularly in the absence of the forces that have taken them down our current path toward destruction of all that makes life worth the living. If, say, in five or ten more generations men have rid themselves of many of the troublesome habits of thought and action that have driven us to our current state of teeter, the provisions and specifications of the "new" foundational document would become effectively unnecessary in terms of day to day living. And yet, the potential for relapse would be ever present. The continued existence and guidance of that document would serve as a beacon to all men, drawing and keeping them ever near the moral center and always guaranteeing their right to act as individuals in the face of any and all threats to their sovereign rights as men.

Pay particular attention to the 9th and 10th amendments before attempting to add any additional fed-gov laws at all.

Were we to foolishly retain the Constitution in the face of the opportunity to do better, then I agree, save the Tenth. The Ninth would be my cutoff point. The Tenth is, at best, redundant to the Ninth. At worse, it serves to cloud the message of the Ninth by injecting vague linguistic references to "the state", which is non-existent. At worst, the Tenth enables precisely the sort of tyranny under which we now suffer and would do absolutely nothing in terms of remedy.

I might also reorder the Amendments and rewrite them. Wether intended, order has effect and that fact should be made use.

Maybe the two amendments (18 & 21)concerning
the regulation of alcohol should remain as a warning how
to not do, and then correctly undo a fed-gov law that
should never ever have been inserted in the first place!

Bad juju. Include nothing of the vile, for it will be abused by men of low character to the detriment of the rest. This is a universal phenomenon of human behavior.

Besides a Constitutional Convention being an absolutely horrible idea, this item concerns me.

Why would I want to make it harder to overturn an unconstitutional law?

It also makes it harder to overturn a constitutional law.

That sword cuts both ways.

I would also hope that this little tidbit exposes the fundamental problem of our entire governmental structure. That Congress is even able to pass and enact unconstitutional law should be a central concern to people, as well as the fact that the courts can arbitrarily declare them constitutional, as well as strike down those that are in fact constitutional.

The very fact that a question of "constitutionality" arises should also give one plenty of pause.

So you don't think we will lose our rights overnight at the rate we are going? How do we peaceably reign them in, then?

I really want to hear some possible solutions.

If Abbott was serious about defending liberty he would be advocating nullification. States and officials that don't have the courage to defend the Constitution as written certainly won't have the wisdom or courage to improve upon it. All the sellouts in state governments will be the ones to control a convention initially.

Originally Posted by dannno

It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.

I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States...When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank...You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!

So you don't think we will lose our rights overnight at the rate we are going? How do we peaceably reign them in, then?

I really want to hear some possible solutions.

The difference is one of time, most likely. An Article V convention would strip us to buck nakedness from one day to the next. Consider the interests of globalists. Consider the money and position they have and occupy. Consider what is at stake. Theye could literally make every man at such a convention an overnight billionaire and president/governor/chief dog catcher of all of them. They could guarantee all their children free educations at an school named, as well as position and status moving forward.

Imagine such people cam with, say, ten trillion dollars to spend and all the access they can give away as perks. Just how long does anyone think that convention would remain honest? It would be gone to conclusion in reality in ten minutes and the rest of us would then be faced with the decision of living with it or killing every last one of the bastards, neither choice being particularly appealing.

We could right this ship tomorrow, if we had the common knowledge, desire, and vision of what America should be. But we don't. We have a huge proportion of people who want something for nothing, courtesy of the neoslaves. That would include you, Ms. Donnay.

At this point I believe we will likely fall into open slavery. Barring that, the only likely path back will be warfare. People are simply going to have to die because their world views drive them to trespass upon the rest without pause or concern for the rights of anyone but their own. This foe of liberty is implacable and they will not stop in their demands, especially so long as the men with guns from the fedgov are there to bolster them.

Were the fedgov to step aside, the situation would alter dramatically with the neomasters then faced with the choice of either having to enforce the will of their desires upon you by their own hands, or standing down, getting some basic sense about them, and going to find jobs somewhere even if not for $15/hr at Burger King.

Barring all that and our choice to lay down, there will by all means be a fight and it will be fugly. But that is the only likely path back from the brink at which we now teeter so precariously.

Personally, I think we are heading into the abyss. I hope I am wrong, but I have a bad feeling about the immediate future. Keep an eye on the conventions for fireworks and if things go awry, do not be too surprised if the Kenyan declares martial law, even if only in regions.

Into a very bad corner have we been painted, courtesy of our own lassitude and will to stupidity. We believed that which was convenient to that lassitude and our corrupted desire to believe in the world of bunnies, light, and unicorn poo. Now we are reaping the bitter harvest of that which we chose to sow. Either we eat of the poison or we suck it up for a hard winter and start anew come spring, this time with our heads not ensconced deeply in our rectums and with smarter eyes, having seen the result we chose yesterday. Let us at least learn from our terrible mistakes.

But don't hold your breath in wait, and for God's sake don't bet the farm on it.

If Abbott was serious about defending liberty he would be advocating nullification. States and officials that don't have the courage to defend the Constitution as written certainly won't have the wisdom or courage to improve upon it. All the sellouts in state governments will be the ones to control a convention initially.

The difference is one of time, most likely. An Article V convention would strip us to buck nakedness from one day to the next. Consider the interests of globalists. Consider the money and position they have and occupy. Consider what is at stake. Theye could literally make every man at such a convention an overnight billionaire and president/governor/chief dog catcher of all of them. They could guarantee all their children free educations at an school named, as well as position and status moving forward.

Imagine such people cam with, say, ten trillion dollars to spend and all the access they can give away as perks. Just how long does anyone think that convention would remain honest? It would be gone to conclusion in reality in ten minutes and the rest of us would then be faced with the decision of living with it or killing every last one of the bastards, neither choice being particularly appealing.

We could right this ship tomorrow, if we had the common knowledge, desire, and vision of what America should be. But we don't. We have a huge proportion of people who want something for nothing, courtesy of the neoslaves. That would include you, Ms. Donnay.

At this point I believe we will likely fall into open slavery. Barring that, the only likely path back will be warfare. People are simply going to have to die because their world views drive them to trespass upon the rest without pause or concern for the rights of anyone but their own. This foe of liberty is implacable and they will not stop in their demands, especially so long as the men with guns from the fedgov are there to bolster them.

Were the fedgov to step aside, the situation would alter dramatically with the neomasters then faced with the choice of either having to enforce the will of their desires upon you by their own hands, or standing down, getting some basic sense about them, and going to find jobs somewhere even if not for $15/hr at Burger King.

Barring all that and our choice to lay down, there will by all means be a fight and it will be fugly. But that is the only likely path back from the brink at which we now teeter so precariously.

Personally, I think we are heading into the abyss. I hope I am wrong, but I have a bad feeling about the immediate future. Keep an eye on the conventions for fireworks and if things go awry, do not be too surprised if the Kenyan declares martial law, even if only in regions.

Into a very bad corner have we been painted, courtesy of our own lassitude and will to stupidity. We believed that which was convenient to that lassitude and our corrupted desire to believe in the world of bunnies, light, and unicorn poo. Now we are reaping the bitter harvest of that which we chose to sow. Either we eat of the poison or we suck it up for a hard winter and start anew come spring, this time with our heads not ensconced deeply in our rectums and with smarter eyes, having seen the result we chose yesterday. Let us at least learn from our terrible mistakes.

But don't hold your breath in wait, and for God's sake don't bet the farm on it.

Thanks, Osan for replying. I am all out of rep, right now.

The globalists want a civil war--especially this racial dividing. I just hope many people wake up before it is too late.

Governor Greg Abbott today delivered the keynote address at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Annual Policy Orientation where he unveiled his Texas Plan to restore the Rule of Law and return the Constitution to its intended purpose. In his plan, Governor Abbott offers nine constitutional amendments to rein in the federal government and restore the balance of power between the States and the United States. The Governor proposes achieving the constitutional amendments through a Convention Of States.

“The increasingly frequent departures from Constitutional principles are destroying the Rule of Law foundation on which this country was built,” said Governor Abbott. “We are succumbing to the caprice of man that our Founders fought to escape. The cure to these problems will not come from Washington D.C. Instead, the states must lead the way. To do that I am adding another item to the agenda next session. I want legislation authorizing Texas to join other states in calling for a Convention of States to fix the cracks in our Constitution.”

Governor Abbott went on to explain that dysfunction in Washington, D.C. stems largely from the federal government’s refusal to follow the Constitution. Congress routinely violates its enumerated powers, while taxing and spending its way from one financial crisis to another. The President exceeds his executive powers to impose heavy-handed regulations. And the Supreme Court imposes its policy views under the guise of judicial interpretation. Governor Abbott urged action by Texas – and other states – to restore the Rule of Law in America.

Governor Abbott offered the following constitutional amendments:

Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.
Require Congress to balance its budget.
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.
Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.
Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.
Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

I wish him well on this, even though a convention of the state's makes me more than a little nervous.

I think we can alleviate fears if we don't just have them go focused on promoting a set of laws and NOTHING ELSE but those laws. Their performance will make them trustworthy enough to send them again if needed. We can't have them deciding to write new laws there we never had consensus on.

I recall you were in "favor" of Trump, so to speak, because we are, for all intents and purposes, $#@!ed and we should 'pick our executioner because if we don't someone will damn well pick one for us' (paraphrased).

Wouldn't a Article V COTS be more or less the same thing? That is to say, what have we got to lose? I would just as soon risk losing it all in an Article V convention than to wither this slow softkill-death which has been foisted upon us. If there is a smidgen of a snowball's chance in hell that such a convention could even marginally cede power from the PTB and back to the states and to the people, wouldn't such a risk be worth it? The worst that could happen (ie 'runaway convention') is that the curtain is fully drawn back on the globalist powers and we have to move straight to ludicrous-speed in fighting for our rights and our very lives. Such a convention would upset the apple cart one way or another and I think the damn cart needs some good god damn upsetting.

Thoughts?

There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

I recall you were in "favor" of Trump, so to speak, because we are, for all intents and purposes, $#@!ed and we should 'pick our executioner because if we don't someone will damn well pick one for us' (paraphrased).

Not really in favor. My point was that he was the only "viable" candidate with any unknowns about him. If I'm going to be part of this sort of clownery, I'd rather take my chances on the unknowns. It's like choosing which pistol you will use in your game of Russian roulette: the one with all six chambers loaded (Hillary/Bernie) or the one with only five (Trump).

Wouldn't a Article V COTS be more or less the same thing? That is to say, what have we got to lose?

Valid question, my answer being that I don't know. Actually, I do. If I consent to an A.V convention, then it can be taken that I consent to whatever result drops into my lap. I give no such consent. I would rather make Themme work as hard as possible for what it is they apparently want of me. That buys time, which is on nobody's side in affairs like this, but that at least gives some augmented possibility that enough people will wake up and say "no". Not likely, I admit, but still better than the alternative.

I would just as soon risk losing it all in an Article V convention than to wither this slow softkill-death which has been foisted upon us.

Again, a valid POV. I suppose the question boils down to which approach is most likely to stir people into some sense of self-preservation... assuming such is even possible anymore.

Such a convention would upset the apple cart one way or another and I think the damn cart needs some good god damn upsetting.

Thoughts?

You have provoked me into a different view. You may be onto something.

Bastard.

But what if the convention went quietly awry with subtle changes nobody would notice for some years until one day the real meat of it comes to the fore via "interpretation"? That is a prospect that should scare everyone because that is the way of the clever and patient tyrant.